> Have any intergeneric
>hybrids been created (ie Sarrs and VFT, etc)?
No, not as far as I know. The _*Dionstera_ is not yet sold in supermarkets,
so I cannot comment on this (I have not yet studied specimens). ;-)
>> Or Heliamphora/Sarracenia/Darlingtonia? They at least are all in the
>> same family.
Tomas,
>I think the main problem for crossing Sarr. with Darlingtonia is a diffe-
>rent number of chromosomes. I am not biologist but I think the crossing is
>forbiden in this case.
It is not forbidden but unlikely to be successful, indeed (but one should
never say never). All three genera have different chromosome numbers.
Chris, Barry,
>What makes a "pure species?"
(...)
>Field work. Field work. Field work.
Sic! And some herbarium work, too.
Terry,
>As far as I am concerned (from a zoological point of view) Separate species
>cannot interbreed to form viable offspring, that is they produce sterile
>hybrids. Is this different in the botanical world
This is definitely different with plants. It is impossible to apply the
zoological species concept in botany.
>, because Sarracenia
>does not fit this criteria? Are we dealing with variants of one species?
No. Hybridization is possible within many genera of plants and sometimes
even between related genera. However, the species are generally well
separated from each other by other barriers than intersterility, and
hybridization is generally a *rare* event. Specific limits are sometimes
not very clear-cut, but a taxon separated from its congeners sufficiently
by means of geographic, ecological, or otherwise effective barriers can be
called a distinct species. In some cases it is unclear if two taxa should
be separated at specific or rather infraspecific (subsp., var., f.) rank.
This has to be judged from studies of variability and discontinuity, and
classification will partly depend on the opinion of the respective
taxonomist (e.g. >10 different species concepts do exist!). But this is no
sufficient reason for lumping all interfertile individuals in one single
species.
Jeffrey,
>A questions for you Botanist/Taxonomy people; How are these three genera
(i.e. Sarraceniaceae)
>considered to be in the same family? Is it by pyhsical charateristics,
>biochemical, or both?
It is by a series of obvious synapomorphies, viz. the formation of (+/-
rosulated) ascidia (pitchers) by coalescence of the margins of bifacial
leaves, the upper (adaxial) surface becoming the interior surface of the
ascidia, the free parts of the margins becoming a (+/- developped)
peristome at the opening of the ascidia, the apices of the leaves becoming
(+/- suppressed) appendages at the dorsal end of the ascidia (cf. the
completely different anatomy of the superficially rather similar ascidia of
_Nepenthes_, _Cephalotus_, or even _Utricularia_). The flowers are quite
different between the genera (indicating old age and great distinctness),
but they still do have a common formula: inflorescence racemose (the raceme
frequently reduced, but bracts present), flowers actinomorphic (regular),
stamina numerous, ovary superior. Droseraceae are in many respects less
uniform (& more widespread; older?) than Sarraceniaceae.
Kind regards
Jan